Earlier this week, Taylor & Francis and its parent company, Informa, published the results of a broad survey of academic authors regarding their views of open access (OA) publishing and trends. It’s an interesting glimpse into how difficult it is to reconcile the desire for free content and complete access with the realities of academic life and financial sustainability. It’s also a flawed survey, despite its robust response rate, as it conflates too many disciplines to create a blended picture that probably applies to no discipline in particular.
The healthy overall response rate of 19% yielded 14,769 responses to the survey instrument. In one section of the survey, the responses were bifurcated so that half the respondents answered questions about what they anticipate will happen while the other half indicated what they wanted to happen regarding the same topics.
The respondents skew slightly toward the humanities and social sciences, with approximately 45% of the responses coming from fields like humanities, behavioral sciences, education, politics, and law. In comparison, 43% of responses came from people in disciplines like engineering, mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, and geology. Conflating and combining these results perpetuates one of the biggest myths of OA — that one size fits all. As we’ve seen, biomedicine and history and physics and computer science each has found its own unique way of dealing with demands for greater access to the literature. Presenting these findings as if they represent one community’s assessment and opinion is a large and seductive flaw.
The results are portrayed clearly in good graphs that allow for fair interpretations, and don’t try to impose too many visual value judgments on the aggregate responses.
Perhaps the clearest and most surprising finding is that there is a great deal of discomfort with CC-BY licenses. In fact, in a question asking respondents to pick between granting an exclusive license to a publisher, using a CC-BY-NC-NP license, signing over copyright, using a CC-BY-NC license, using a CC-BY-ND license, or using a CC-BY license, the CC-BY lost by a mile — 52% of respondents said it was their least-preferred license, a far higher rate than any other license. Copyright assignment was the next least-preferred, but even it registered a relatively paltry 17% rate of disfavor (copyright was also the third most-preferred approach, while CC-BY was the laggard in most-preferred, making CC-BY the clear loser of the batch). This dislike for the CC-BY bargain doesn’t bode well for the orthodox definition of OA, which depends on the CC-BY license and defends it reflexively; of course, the RCUK mandate also requires it.
Other findings I took away from the survey:
- Academics aren’t really following the OA movement in any great detail, but they have internalized some accurate information nevertheless — that OA articles are more widely circulated but not necessarily to other researchers, and that OA doesn’t lead to more citations, for instance.
- There is skepticism that OA drives innovation, and some uncertainty about quality and production values. However, there is a strong feeling that OA offers fundamental benefits.
- The strongest point of agreement comes in response to the notion that publication of research should not be limited by the ability to pay. At the same time, there is good agreement that all research outputs should be free for everyone to read online.
This last point represents the pattern found in much of the survey — tensions between the ideal and the real. More particularly, how nobody pays for what everyone should have becomes a looming issue in this juxtaposition of questions.
The practical answers come later in the survey, where respondents show their pragmatism when faced with more earthbound questions. For instance, when asked to choose between publishing in the best journal possible regardless of cost, a journal that doesn’t charge for publication, or a journal that doesn’t charge for reading, the chips fall pretty much as you’d expect — 52% go for the best journal, regardless of cost; 39% go for a journal that doesn’t charge them to publish; and 9% prefer journals that don’t charge readers. Traditional peer review and rigorous standards also seem to beat out fast publication times and accelerated peer review overall, but when an OA journal is the venue in question, these criteria change a little, with greater expectations emerging around rapid review and publication.
Funding options and mandates are also explored, with little funding support offered and mandates apparently not driving much behavior yet. The “I don’t know” zones are especially large in some of these charts. To me, watching the middle areas in these graphs — the yellow areas in some, the mid-blues in others — provided most of the fun. There are vast areas of “um . . .” in these results.
As mentioned above, the survey was split into two parts, one exploring what respondents “think” will happen, the other exploring what they “want” to happen. There isn’t much of a gap between the two in most cases, but where there are differences, they are potentially important. For instance, more respondents think funders will dictate where they publish (31%) than like this idea (11%). Some antipathy toward impact factors is to be found, as well.
It’s an interesting survey, and well worth reviewing, despite its shortcomings. I hope that Taylor & Francis or Informa take some time to provide slices that are domain-specific, if there’s a way to do so legitimately, without sacrificing the statistical power of the survey. At least then we’d have something more approximate to meaningful community preferences. As it stands, this is an interesting snapshot of a crowd, and somewhere in the crowd are the people we care about. Unfortunately, we can’t tell which ones they are.